SmarterthanYou
rebel
no. your move.
Holding gun makers accountable
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
no. your move.
And you are still stumbling around in self-imposed darkness.
If they are the only cases that exist and they all verify my viewpoint, you calling either my support or position cherry-picked is either numbskulled ignorance or willful and rude obtuseness.
Which says nothing to support you other than confirming that people can write things that wish for different things to happen.
Nothing in that law review article rebuts anything I said. That article confirms my position, that DeShaney is the current law and no right to police protection exists in the USA.
I quoted and cited DeShaney back in post 79 because it is the definitive, final and casemotherfuckingclosed ruling on the subject.
Just because you found some guy who wrote a law review article that thinks that DeShaney is wrong, doesn't make you correct and it certainly does not make me wrong.
I don't "oppose that view", all I was giving you was the law as it stands in the USA. Americans (plural, as memebers of society) have a right to be protected; an American (singular, a private citizen) has no expectation of safety or protection from his/her government.
I think it is silly to oppose a citizen exercising responsible lawful armed self-defense when the government accepts no responsibility for his/her safety and protection.
I notice you have not quoted or cited any law or court decisions from international law that states that governments are responsible for the safety and protection of individual citizens.
You say it is a fundamental tenet, surely it should not be hard to find.
moon
Satire for Sanity
The world's highest legal instruments support the protection of all , including that of individuals, erga omnes. The essence of the protections which underpin the Constitution is the protection of Americans, including individuals, as championed by experts such as Heyman- http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3172&context=dlj- . This is a fundamental function of higher human-mindedness , the glue which holds humanity- and its communities- together. People enter into civic agreements with their government on the understanding that they are sacrificing elements of their individuality in exchange for protection.
And then there are those that contort this understanding, accidentally or by design, governors, congressmen, senators, judges, circuits- even politically-motivated Supremes- and this eats away at the fabric of society and enables unhealthy practices functioning under the protection of ' law '. Those that support these contortions of the intent of the authors of moral legislations and constitutions do so for reasons of their own power and enrichment at the expense of the health and liberty of others. You, for example, are willing to ignore or trash the fundamentals of social cohesion ..........in order to hang onto your guns.
Quite obviously you must be opposed at every juncture. America deserves better.
And then there are those that contort this understanding, accidentally or by design, governors, congressmen, senators, judges, circuits- even politically-motivated Supremes- and this eats away at the fabric of society and enables unhealthy practices functioning under the protection of ' law '. Those that support these contortions of the intent of the authors of moral legislations and constitutions do so for reasons of their own power and enrichment at the expense of the health and liberty of others. You, for example, are willing to ignore or trash the fundamentals of social cohesion ..........in order to hang onto your guns.
Quite obviously you must be opposed at every juncture. America deserves better.
Except nowhere is any individual right to protection recognized. The definition you provided, from Wikipedia only notes duty to all which exists in the USA in the public duty doctrine.
"Erga omnes is a Latin phrase which means "towards all" or "towards everyone". In legal terminology, erga omnes rights or obligations are owed toward all."
Abiding by the interpretive rule of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the calling out of "all" and "everyone" forecloses extending the action to individuals.
In the USA, that exclusion just happens to be spelled out.
"public duty doctrine: a government entity (as a state or municipality) cannot be held liable for the injuries of an individual resulting from a public officer's or employee's breach of a duty owed to the public as a whole . . . "
Again, the duty of protection is only owed to the whole, everyone and all.
So, is it that the US doctrine is more honest or is it that you just don't know what you are talking about and have nothing to demonstrate the law is as you represent?
I have repeatedly asked you for any legal acknowledgement in international law that such a duty is extended to individuals; all you have provided says the duty only pertains to "all" or "everyone" . . . So, please stop the misrepresentation and deceit.
The rest of your word salad need not be addressed as you have failed to substantiate your argument at the most fundamental level.
You have lots of guns and therefore lots of murders. If you look up the real facts you will learn that in the North people simply didn't provide the guns to serve in the militia, whereas in the South they were armed to the teeth to murder 'black' people, as the yellow-bellies still are. If you force people into poverty and drug-taking, they will turn to crime, obviously. You don't half blather to defend the indefensible and your race-hate comes through every time.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
His point boils down to nothing else and basically says - "GUNS SCARY".
Liberals want to use "RIGHTS" to take away the rights of others.
Their "RIGHTS" end, where mine begin and me owning a gun does not infringe upon theirs; but they want their "RIGHTS" to infringe on mine and others.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Your efforts to reduce information to its lowest common denominator have met with their customary failure, Polly.
I feel sorry that someone like you is such a traitor that you put irrelevant law above the sovereignty of the U.S.
Your failure to recognize a truthful statement proves you're nothing more than a retard raghead. Loosen it up son. It's squeezing your head too hard.
The complete lack of any support of your claim is again noted.
Just show how international law is set-up to allow the victims of the Paris attacks to sue the EU, France and Paris for not keeping them safe.
moon
Satire for Sanity
It's enough to know that the principle for their protection exists- otherwise nobody would get hot under the collar about their deaths. It's the same for any incidence of unlawful killing. Folk are protected by law and the laws that protect them have evolved over time. This principle is enshrined in international law and subscribers to the authority of international law are obliged to respect it.
The Paris killings were unlawful. There have been/will be repercussions for the guilty. The details of the applied justice will differ worldwide- but the principle of such justice underpins everything we do. We expect the protection of the law- and the rulings you've quoted are simply the machinations of shysters- whom you will support because they favor your own quasi-legal gun cravings.
How many people accept that they have no right to protection by their own police forces ? Shysters might get away with such rulings on a strictly local level- but that's never going to wash with the international community. Even the notion of the purposes of armies would break down.
Last edited:
The complete lack of any support of your claim is again noted.
You again fail to demonstrate how international law is set-up to allow the victims of a criminal attack to sue a nation and/or city for not keeping them safe.
You claim a "right to protection" exists but you are dancing, prancing and somersaulting trying to avoid saying individuals have absolutely no legal claim against any government agency for failing to protect them.
Of what value is your "right" if nobody can be legally held responsible for its violation?
Not what the discussion is. You claim a "right" exists but can not show that any government agent or entity is liable for failure to provide protection. If prosecuting the perpetrator is enforcing the "right to protection" then the USA is the world leader with our incarceration rates. Just stop with the stupid shit . . .
A right is violated by government and the enforcement of that right affords individuals the court process for redress . . . It makes no difference if governments indemnify themselves to extinguish claims before they can be filed (as in the USA) or simply if that process does not exist (as in international law). Both result in the legal fact that no government agent is duty bound to provide protection to any citizen and government can not be held liable for failure to provide protection for any individual citizen.
Whatever duty to protect exists, in both systems, it only pertains to society as a whole and is not an actionable personal right.
It's just that the US system is more honest and up-front about it.
.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Certainly individuals have rights under international law- and if you want to claim that there is no redress anywhere, that " individuals currently have obligations and rights but no remedies under general international law " then you'd be wrong on that score too. As examples, the 11th protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1998, 'enables individual victims to seise the Court directly. The same is now possible with regard to the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights.'
http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/1/25.full
That's the trend. Progress. As I keep repeating, local shysters might well be primed to do the bidding of gun lobbies currently - but change will come. The general right of everybody for protection by the state and the right of redress are the future. It is "consistent from the viewpoint of legal logic " Enjoy your moment.
So please refrain from dependence upon your local examples regarding states and the police- it's an insult to the human spirit. These backwoods legalities have always been evidently flawed even though the rulings have to be respected - for the time being.
Last edited:
I really want nothing to do with international law and will donate/campaign vigorously against any political candidate who supports it. Anyone who thinks the UN would look out for the rights and well being of the citizens of the US is fooling themselves.
And don't forget the Ubangie law in the Congo that enables you to sue the Chief if he violates your civil rights....idiot
moon
Satire for Sanity
International law is essential. Your world would not exist without it. Your country wouldn't have any recognised borders. There would be no treaties. There would be no movement of goods. Pirates and pillagers would rule. War would be constant and unrestrained by rules. You're going to be very busy campaigning against every politician on earth.
Last edited:
moon
Satire for Sanity
I don't think that the opinion of a fraudulent navy vet. - who is happy to see the murder of American sailors in international waters glossed over for money - is going to be of worth to anybody at all. Treacherous moron.
http://www.wrmea.org/1993-june/the-assault-on-the-uss-liberty-still-covered-up-after-26-years.html
Last edited: